Democrats Weigh Timetable Vote as Iraq Compromise

House Democratic leaders, seeking a compromise with several dozen anti-war lawmakers in their own caucus, are considering a vote on a timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq before taking up $98 billion in new military spending.

In return for the vote, the leaders want the 50 to 75 anti-war Democrats to support the wartime funding, if their proposal fails.

Story Continued Below

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and her leaders face an uprising from liberal Democrats opposed to the wartime supplemental. If they allow a House floor vote to set a withdrawal date, it would be the first such vote in either the House or the Senate since the Democrats took control of Congress in January. And it would mark a new phase in the political struggle over the conflict.

Pelosi is trying to balance demands from anti-war liberal Democrats for dramatic moves to scale down -- or end -- the war against calls from more moderate and conservative Democrats to avoid votes that would undoubtedly jeopardize their own political futures. That includes a vote on a proposal by Rep. Jack P. Murtha (D-Pa.) to restrict the Pentagon in deploying the additional 21,500 combat troops that President Bush plans to send to Iraq.

At the same time, Republican leaders are railing against Democrats, accusing them of undermining the U.S. military campaign.

For Pelosi, it represents the most difficult challenge of her short, historic speakership, just entering its third month. And the division within her caucus reflects the larger split within the country over the war.

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters on Tuesday that top Democrats "are trying to create a consensus" within their own party before bringing the wartime funding bill up for a floor vote.

The bill, however, will not be on the floor until next week at the earliest, he predicted.

"We're discussing whether or not members will feel the necessity to offer such an amendment," Hoyer added.

During a closed-door meeting of House Democrats, Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel of Illinois made "an impassioned plea" for unity on the war, said Democrats who attended the session.

"People have to remember that you can't put it all in one bill," noted a Democratic leadership aide. "This one bill is not going to end the war and solve all our problems."

But Emanuel's appeal, as well as the lobbying by Pelosi and other party leaders, has yet to win over the anti-war Democrats, led by Reps. Barbara Lee and Maxine Waters, both of California.

"We have made no deals with anyone about anything," Waters said.

These Democrats opposed the war since its start and, despite the new Democratic majority in the House, are not at all eager to vote for the new war funds. Supporting the money, they argue, would give them "ownership" of the war along with Bush and the Republicans in Congress.

“I have instructions from my constituents to get us out of Iraq now,’’ said Rep. Diane E. Watson, (D-Calif.). “I have the Hollywood community…Not a day goes by that I’m not contacted to get out of Iraq now.”

And she said she couldn’t support any the additional wartime money, if it isn’t coupled with a withdrawal timetable.

A “span of time’’ for withdrawing might be amenable, she said. “But it has to be while President Bush is in office. This is his war. He is responsible for it."

Democratic leaders prefer to "have one vote," said Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) "Whether there will be other votes has not yet been determined ... I would like to see an alternative that would set a timeline, but right now I'm hoping to get something meaningful incorporated into the bill."

"Leadership has to say to people that they may not get everything they want," added Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.). "It's sensitive."

House Republicans, for their part, continue to paint the Democratic maneuvering on the supplemental as an effort to de-fund the war and withdraw troops from Iraq.

Republican leaders in the House have vowed not to support any wartime spending bill that either limits military commanders' ability to prosecute the war and complete reconstruction projects or becomes a "big green light" for spending unrelated to the war. In general, the more time members spend negotiating the particulars of a spending bill, the more unrelated projects are added as sweeteners for wavering lawmakers.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said Tuesday that leaders have been reaching out to Republicans to gauge their support for Democratic proposals, even though details had not been released. And he said his members would stand with their leaders when the eventual bill comes to the floor.

But Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-Md.), who voted with Democratic leaders to reject Bush's troop surge in a symbolic vote last month, told fellow moderate Republicans that they should consider whatever plan Murtha unveils.

"We really better objectively look at what Murtha is trying to do," Gilchrest said. "It is a conversation we need to have."

The Vietnam veteran said he and other veterans "were craving someone who knew what was going on." And he suggested that Murtha, a former decorated Marine, was the man.

On the other side of the Capitol, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said he wants to begin a floor debate on Iraq next week, although he has not yet reached an agreement with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on what would be debated and for how long.

Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairmen of the Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees, respectively, are drafting a revised version of the 2002 resolution authorizing the U.S. invasion of Iraq, but as with their House counterparts, Senate Democrats have yet to approve that plan. And McConnell is still pushing a proposal by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.) stating that Congress will not cut funding for U.S. troops in the field.